[513-536] Since the joint flight with the Soviets grew in part from studies on how to utilize excess Apollo hardware, the mission planners in Houston naturally gave considerable attention to the scientific experiments that would be flown. As early as mid-1971, René Berglund received a proposal from Paul R. Penrod, who was working with the Advanced Programs Office representing the Science and Applications Directorate, suggesting scientific activities for an International Rendezvous and Docking Mission (IRDM). Penrod stressed maximum use of existing hardware, maximum crew involvement, use of the docking module (DM) as an experiment station, minimum use of extravehicular activity (EVA), and a schedule leading to either a mid- 1974 or mid-1975 launch. While none of the actual experiments proposed by Penrod at this time were flown on ASTP, his suggestions became leading criteria in choosing experiments for the joint flight.1
In mid-October 1971, Penrod recommended to Berglund that one of the exciting aspects of an American-Soviet mission was the possibility of conducting joint experimentsduring the docked phase of the operation. Such exercises would not affect the feasibility of an international mission, and certainly it would provide meaningful activities for the docked portion of the venture.2 In December 1971, a letter from Penrod was sent to selected potential experimenters informing them of NASA's "interest in directly involving the user community in the payload planning for the International Rendezvous and Docking Mission."3 Implicit in this early work were some basic assumptions that would shape subsequent efforts to select ASTP experiments. There would be two categories of scientific investigations - NASA (unilateral) and joint (bilateral). Crewmembers would be active participants in the experiments, which would fall into three groups - stellar phenomena, materials processing, and earth observations. Another key feature of these early discussions was the "austere funding climate" that dictated the use of CSM 111, which did not have the scientific instrument module bay, plus a $10-million ceiling on the cost of the total experiment package.4
Formalization of the experiment effort came in the fall of 1972. On 4 October, an initial meeting was held in Washington, during which Houston personnel explained to NASA Headquarters staff the engineering and operational constraints on the planning effort.5 To simplify the experiment planning, a NASA Working Group was given internal responsibility for overseeing this work. Further, to prevent confusion in the negotiations with the Soviets, M. Pete Frank's Working Group 1 was given sole responsibility for coordinating efforts on bilateral experiments.6 Through the first six months of 1973, NASA examined candidate experiments.
As this work progressed, Representative Olin Teague urged the agency to make alternative plans for the mission in the event that the Soviets failed for either political or technical reasons to rendezvous with Apollo. Teague believed that it was "essential that the NASA portion of the mission be capable of making a justifiable, independent, scientific and technological contribution without reliance on a Soviet rendezvous."7 As indicated in chapter VII ("Creating a Test Project"), George Low and the Headquarters staff decided to rely upon the Soviets and not exceed the $10-million budget for experiments.
On 29 June 1973, Administrator Fletcher issued in letter form an "Announcement of Flight Opportunity" for the ASTP mission. Fletcher said, "In addition to developing mutual space rescue capability, the U.S. spacecraft will be able to carry about 400 pounds [181 kg] to conduct other space experiments of high importance." He also emphasized that "investigations that capitalize on the unique nature of this flight and are of common interest to both the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. are, of course, of interest." Enclosed with the letter was a schedule for experiment planning, development, and implementation:
|
1. Proposals Due at NASA(If appropriate, a prior proposal with a memo updating it will be acceptable.) |
July 23, 1973 |
|
2. Experiment Selection |
Week of July 30, 1973 |
|
3.Selected Experimenter Notification |
August 20, 1973 |
|
4. Interface Control Documentation Complete |
October 1, 1973 |
|
5. Mockup Complete |
March 1, 1974 |
|
6. Training Simulator (Plus thermal model, if required) |
April 1, 1974 |
|
7. Definitive Training Unit |
August 1, 1974 |
|
8. Qual[ification] Test Complete |
October 15, 1974 |
|
9. Flight Unit Delivery: Experiments requiring installation in docking module or require penetration of docking module wall |
August 1, 1974 |
|
CSM Installation: |
|
|
Complex type |
December 1, 1974 |
|
Stowage type |
April 15, 1975 |
|
10. Roll Out to Launch Pad (Only limited access to experiments after this date ) |
March 1, 1975 |
|
11. Launch8 |
July 15, 1975 |
During the week of 30 July, a formally chartered, closed to the public, Ad Hoc Evaluation Committee will assemble at the Johnson Space Center to evaluate all proposals including those evaluated as unacceptable for technical and merit reasons in the preliminary review . . . and to categorize them according to suitability for the mission. The proposers will be asked to make presentations and otherwise explain and expand upon their proposals as an expedient to the evaluation process. . . .
Following the activities of the ASTP Program Office, the Ad Hoc Evaluation Committee and costing studies, the Manned Space Flight Experiments Board will review the categorized list developed by the Ad Hoc Committee. This list will include the life science experiments which will have undergone a separate review by the American Institute of Biological Sciences and specific members of the Space Medicine and Biology Committee, Space Science Board of the NAS [National Academy of Sciences]. The MSFEB reviews will be attended by Science, Applications, Technology, and Life Sciences personnel. . . .
We then plan that a presentation will be made to you and Dr. Low on the results of the evaluation and on the integration and cost aspects of the proposed experiments.11
On 16 August 1973, Fletcher approved an experiments payload, as presented by Chet Lee, the Program Director. This payload had been approved by the Manned Space Flight Experiments Board (MSFEB) on 10 August from a recommended list provided by the Science, Applications and Technology Ad Hoe Committee, the Life Sciences Ad Hoe Panel, and the American Institute of Biological Sciences Ad Hoe Panel. A total of 146 proposals were received: 24 in the life sciences, 75 in applications and technology, and 47 in the physical sciences. The 18 experiments approved on 16 August were the following:12
|
MA no. |
Experiment |
Principal investigator |
Institution |
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As work on the experiments progressed, Chet Lee's office became concerned over their rising costs. Since this increase was largely caused by the amount of documentation required to qualify them for the flight, Lee recommended a relaxation of the procedures:
The latest cost estimates for experiments hardware indicate that a substantial part of the cost growth we have seen is attributable to implementation of the necessary tasks and effort to meet the Apollo quality and reliability standards which were established to provide the highest assurance that hardware was reliable and safe. The application of these standards to the Apollo and Skylab experiment package was a major factor in their success. The high costs, resulting from the implementation of these standards for high reliability, was warranted because of the high initial investment in the lunar flights, whose primary objective became science following the initial lunar landing. Since science is a secondary objective for ASTP, the capital investment in experiments should be much lower. Therefore, in order to reduce costs we should not require the same degree of documentation, formal reviews, etc. that provided the highest assurance that the reliability and quality standards are being met. Therefore, it is necessary that for the ASTP experiment hardware, the Apollo reliability and quality guidelines be relaxed except where safety of the crew is involved.14
Lunney agreed with this evaluation and advised Lee that his office had reviewed the situation and had selected an approach that would minimize costs but still provide high quality hardware. A cost reduction effort was initiated in December 1973 to reduce the cost of the ASTP experiments and to serve as a pilot project for evaluating experiment cost reduction in future programs.15
As the Johnson Space Center (JSC) prepared for the flight, new experiments were added and others were deleted or altered. At an MSFEB meeting on 7 January 1974, six more experiments were approved for ASTP subject to the availability of funds and payload capability. Concurrently , the experiment cost ceiling was raised to $16 million. Earth observations and photography (MA-136) was expanded and given full experiment status. Stratospheric aerosol measurement (MA-007) and crystal growth (MA-028) were conditionally approved pending a review by the Ad Hoc Committees. Gas release (MA-043) was also approved tentatively, contingent upon low impact on the docking module design and on the spectrometer used for ultraviolet absorption (MA-059). The other three new experiments were electrophoresis technology (MA-- 011), geodynamics (MA-128), and barium cloud (MA-017). The barium cloud and gas release investigations were dropped from consideration during the summer of 1974 because of technical and expense difficulties.16
[Image here]
Experiment equipment locations
During the next year, the experimenters were busy with preparations for the flight.17 On 26 June 1974, while the principal investigators and contractors worked on their hardware, NASA officially appointed R. Thomas Giuli, of the JSC Science and Applications Directorate, to be the ASTP Program Scientist. His responsibilities included coordinating all scientific aspects of the mission.18 Subsequently, Giuli summarized in the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project Preliminary Science Report* the programmatic aspects of the experiments performed unilaterally by the U.S. and jointly with the U.S.S.R.:
The Apollo-Soyuz Test Project . . . experiments package comprised 28 separate experiments. Twenty-one were unilateral U.S. experiments, five were joint U.S.-U.S.S.R. experiments . . . and two were unilateral West German experiments (i.e., funded by the Federal Republic of Germany). Together, these experiments formed a well-integrated program of complementary scientific objectives. In several cases, related experiments used different techniques in pursuit of the same or similar scientific objectives. A comparison of the scientific results from these experiments may be useful in defining the best technique to pursue in future space missions.
The individual experiments are grouped in this report according to category and topic. The space sciences experiments are presented in order of the distance away from the center of the Earth that the objectives of study lie. The soft X-ray objects lie deep in our galaxy and even beyond our galaxy. The extreme ultraviolet (EUV) objects lie within a few hundred light-years from the solar system, whereas the portion of the interstellar medium investigated by the helium glow experiment lies within a few astronomical units. The corona photographed during the artificial solar eclipse lay within approximately 50 solar radii from the Sun. Two crystal detectors that have potential application for future gamma-ray astronomy payloads were carried onboard the Apollo spacecraft to measure their susceptibility to radioactivation by cosmic particle bombardment. The tenuous Earth atmosphere at the spacecraft altitude was investigated by ultraviolet absorption, and the aerosol component of the atmosphere below the spacecraft was investigated by stratospheric measurements. Features of the Earth surface were observed and photographed by the Apollo crew, and the structure of the Earth below the surface was investigated by two spacecraft-spacecraft doppler techniques.
The life sciences experiment addressed three primary topics. One was the effects of cosmic particle bombardment on live cells: the human eye retina (light flash), dormant eggs and seeds (biostack), and growing fungi (zone-forming fungi). (The fungi experiment also studied the effects of space-flight factors on biorhythm.) The second topic was the effects of space flight on the human immune system from the aspect of microbial transfer and ability to cause infection and from the aspect of the ability of the immune system to resist infection. The third topic was the effects of reduced gravity on the calcium metabolism of the killifish vestibular system. The purpose was to assess the feasibility of using the killifish vestibular system as a model for future investigation of space-flight effects on human calcium metabolism.
The materials processing effort addressed two topics: the separation of live cells and the improvement of physical properties of solid materials. The live cell separation was performed by each of two electrophoresis methods in which an electric field was applied through a buffer solution containing a mixture of cells with different biological functions (and hence with different negative surface charges). The cells separated into groups of cells with like biological function, each group being characterized by a unique value of cell surface charge. Each group thus acquired a unique speed through the buffer solution. The solid materials were processed by a high-temperature (melting) technique and an ambient-temperature (crystal growth from solution) technique.
The subsequent sections in this report describe in detail the conceptual, instrumental, and operational aspects of each experiment and include a preliminary assessment of scientific results. This section describes the major preliminary results of a few of the experiments (astronomy, Earth atmosphere, Earth observations, biological materials processing, and solid materials processing) as known in December 1975.19

R. D. Hudson, Johnson Space Center
Interest has developed in studying the effect of high charge and high energy (HZE) particles on human tissue during prolonged space flight. Of particular interest are the effects on non-generative cells, such as the tissue composing the central nervous system. The HZE particles (generally the heavier and energetic cosmic rays) may have destructive effects on human cells under some circumstances. Experiments MA-106, MA-107, and MA-1 47 were designed to investigate how cosmic rays affect live cells.
Experiments performed by the U.S.S.R. and the U.S. on their space flights have shown that (1) microbes transfer between crewmembers and from crewmembers to the spacecraft; (2) numbers of types of microbes reduce significantly , whereas numbers of microbes of a given (surviving) type increase significantly; and ( 3) immunological resistance of crewmembers may change during flight. AR-002, complemented by laboratory analysis of blood samples to be performed by MA-031 and MA-032, investigated separately questions of how space flight alters the ability of microbes to infect humans and how space flight alters the ability of humans to resist infection.
For various types of biological research and medical application, it is necessary to separate pure samples of live cells from a mixture of different types of live cells. The separation process is often not amenable to centrifuge or filter techniques because the different types of cells are not sufficiently dissimilar in size, shape, or mass. Electrophoresis is a separation method that utilizes the fact that live cells have a negative surface charge, and the quantity of this charge is as unique to each type of cell as the cell's biological function. Thus, if a mixture of different types of cells is placed in an electrolytic buffer solution (the composition of which is chosen to preserve the biological vitality of the cells), and if an electrical field is applied, the different types of cells should separate into individual zones according to their individual electrophoretic mobilities. In ground-based laboratories, the performance of this process is limited by effects that are the result of the 1-g environment; for example, the density difference between sample zones and buffer solution causes sedimentation, and heating of the electrophoretic column by the electric field causes destabilizing currents. Both effects are counterproductive. On ASTP, two methods of electrophoresis were tested to determine if better results could be obtained from processing materials in zero gravity.
* Published in Feb. 1976 as NASA TM X-58173, this 529-page report provided a detailed synopsis of scientific results as analyzed through 1975. This document is available through the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Va. 22161. Vol. I of a Summary Science Report was published in 1977 as NASA SP-412 and vol. II is in preparation.
1. Paul R. Penrod to René A. Berglund, memo, "International Rendezvous and Docking Mission (IRDM) Experiment Requirements," 17 Sept. 1971.
2. Penrod to Berglund, memo, "Joint USA-USSR Experiments during the Docked Phase of IRDM," 15 Oct. 1972.
3. For example, Penrod to William O. Davis, 22 Dec.1971. See "Post Skylab Missions Familiarization Briefing," 28 Dec. 1971.
4. William O. Armstrong to Berglund, memo, "Payload Planning for Post Skylab CSM Missions," 10 Mar. 1972.
5. Richard J. Allenby to distribution, memo, "ASTP Investigations," 20 Oct. 1972.
6. John E. Naugle to Dale D. Myers, memo, "Joint NASA/USSR Experiments," 2 Nov. 1972; and Myers to distribution, memo, "Joint NASA/ USSR Experiments," 19 Dec. 1972.
7. Olin E. Teague to James C. Fletcher, 1 May 1973.
8. Fletcher to distribution, 29 June 1973, with enclosure.
9. Homer E. Newell to Fletcher, 27 July 1973.
10. "Summary Minutes Apollo-Soyuz Test Project (ASTP) Seminar," Houston House, Woods Hole, Mass., 7 July 1973.
11. Newell to Fletcher, 27 July 1973.
12. Chester M. Lee to Glynn S. Lunney, memo, "ASTP Experiment Payload," 27 Aug. 1973.
13. Lunney to Konstantin Davydovich Bushuyev [28 Aug. 1973].
14. Lee to Lunney, Ellery B. May, and William H. Rock, memo, "ASTP Experiments Payload," 30 Nov. 1973.
15. Lunney to Lee, memo, "ASTP Experiments Payload," 14 Dec. 1973; and Lawrence G. Williams, "ASTP Experiment Development Evaluation Report," 21 Aug. 1975.
16. Lee to Lunney, memo, "ASTP Experiments Payload Addition," 1 Feb. 1974; William C. Schneider to Lee, memo, "Approval of Experiments MA-007, Stratosphere Aerosol Measurement and MA-028, Crystal Growth for Apollo/Soyuz Test Project," 19 Mar. 1974; Lee to Naugle, memo, "ASTP Barium Cloud Experiment-MA-017," 9 Apr. 1974; TWX, Lee to Lunney et at., "ASTP Barium Cloud Experiment-MA-017," 24 Apr. 1974; Lee to Lunney, memo, "ASTP Barium Cloud Experiment - MA-017," 24 Apr. 1974; Lee to Armstrong, memo, "ASTP Barium Cloud Experiment-MA-017," 25 Apr. 1974; and Lee to John F. Yardley, memo, "ASTP Barium Cloud Experiment, MA-017," 10 July 1974.
17. Robert O. Aller to attendees, memo, "ASTP Joint Experiments Meeting, NASA Headquarters on June 26, 1974," 1 July 1974.
18. JSC Announcement, "Key Personnel Assignment," 26 June 1974.
19. NASA, Apollo-Soyuz
Test Project Preliminary Science Report, TM X-58173 (Springfield,
Va., 1976), pp. 1-1 and 1-2.